guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:ChaoticCoyote
Dyed armors Hiya, I've seen your char's armors and they look great! :) Did ya mix the dyes yourself ? If so.....can I have the recipies ? Or at least the purple/amethyst one.....I've got a friend who loves that color.... -- Torins (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2006 (CDT) :Believe it or not, my necro's armor is died with plain old Purple. The Ascended Bonelace takes color *very* nicely, which is one reason I picked it. Alanora, my ranger, is in black (leggings and boots) and regular Blue Dye (Luxon top and greaves). -- ChaoticCoyote 13:09, 12 October 2006 (CDT) ::Oh...ty anyway....well, since i'm posting here I'll ask this too: Can I use parts of your user page code on my user page? -- Torins (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2006 (CDT) :::Sure, I "borrowed" it from User:Gumby -- 13:20, 12 October 2006 (CDT) About Builds Given the lack of a sane review process, I'm somewhat reluctant to post builds on GuildWiki. As a professional writer, I'm concerned about the lack of *any* formal process. Looking through many votes, I see: # Votes by people who never tried the build, and who don't even read the build text. Some of these comments are only a couple of words. # Votes from those who recognize that the build works, but they don't like it personally. # Votes based on a specific prejudice, i.e., "I don't like skill X, so this build sucks." At this point, GuildWiki has no real requirements for voting on builds. Some sort of balance needs to be struck between the current free-for-all (re: meaningless) vote system, and an onerous process that would keep people from voting at all. My suggestion is: # Someone posts a new build # An editor (not the submitter) reviews the build for completeness, grammar, duplication, and technical accuracy, and moves it into the "ready for vote" category when the build is "clean." Note that this is *NOT* a vote on whether a build is good or bad. # The build is placed into the voting queue for a month (or two weeks, or some reasonable time period). During that time, people vote on the build as they do now. The author of the build can adjust it based on feedback. # Admins should removed any vote that does not explain it's reasoning. To simply say "I like it" or "No rez, bad build" is useless; it shows that the voter did not pay any attention to the actual build, and just popped off an answer on a whim. # After the voting period, the build is moved to either "favoured" or unfavoured" based on majority vote. This allows an admin to act as final editor -- not to reject or accept builds based on personal opinion, but to ensure theat the vote has any meaning. # Perhaps the system could provide a "suggested list", from the admins, of build that are "featured for voting" this week, to spur voting. I suggest that admins be assigned to each profession, to nominate a build for the "suggest vote" list. Having an "elite" squad of build reviewers defeats the purpose of having a wiki; the current chaotic system has no validity whatsoever. The wiki has too many partial and languishing builds, and people who spend time carefully crafting a build find their work ignored or treated poorly by the ignorati. If the GuildWiki community is unwilling to develop a better system for posting builds, it might as well delete everything but specific "iconic" builds (or guides) and leave the debates to the forums. :In general, this is reasonable. However, I think 4 is unenforceable due to subjectivity. You give two examples: "no rez, bad build" and "I don't like skill X, so this build sucks." Outside of AB, lacking a resurrect is usually enough to make a non-monk, non-ganker/flagger bad. Some skills are bad. Some are bad enough that simply swapping that skill out for some other skill will change a build from bad to good. :If only a few people want to vote on builds, implementing your suggestions isn't going to change that. I'm not sure how you could reasonably encourage more people to contribute to the builds section. We already have a "look at me and vote!" section on builds, though it only has one build at a time. :I'm not against wiping builds from GWiki but I don't feel strongly enough to try to champion a push to remove them. I was against having them from the very first on the grounds that everything involving builds is too subjective and it's too easy to lead builds away from their original contributor's purpose due to the collaborative process. --Fyren 08:50, 15 October 2006 (CDT) A break After reading your comments on N/Mo E-Bond SS, I think you need a break. :P Don't exhaust yourself on something like the builds policy--it is just a game, at the end of the day. --Ufelder 12:18, 18 October 2006 (CDT) :I'm just annoyed by petty dictators who pontificate about how they care for democracy. Applying principles selectively is hypocrisy, simple as that. Karlos may have good point, but he loses the high ground by being bossy, and that in turn reduces the chance of developing a system that works. -- ChaoticCoyote 12:21, 18 October 2006 (CDT) Hi! I saw your user page and was going to throw you with my standard "Give credit to the users that you copied the layout from or took inspiration from", but then I looked more closely at your page. I laughed a lot reading your opening comments and while reading your ranger box I was thrilled to find someone who shares my passion for rangers. Nice to meet you. -- (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2006 (CST) :Hi again. I would still liek to see you add credits to the user page. ;) -- (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2007 (CST) ::Thanks! Sorry for the trouble. -- (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2007 (CST) Archiving. Hey. Please remove all category tags from your archived builds, so they don't show up in categories like this one. Thanks. -Auron 20:01, 12 April 2007 (CDT) Big changes for GuildWiki We, the GuildWiki community, have moved the GuildWiki content to a new site at http://www.guildwiki.org. It will maintain the look and feel of GuildWiki that you've been used to, and the majority of our active editors will be shifting their primary editing activity to there. (Read here for more information, including details on how to reclaim your account.) The current wiki at guildwars.wikia.com will, of course, continue to be hosted by Wikia, and we have some big changes planned for it. Wikia has recently introduced a new user interface to all of its sites that emphasizes community interaction over encyclopedic content, so we're planning to leverage this new style and endeavor to turn GuildWars@Wikia into more of a fan community site, promoting fan-created content better than GuildWiki did. (Read here for more information.) If you are still playing Guild Wars (or would like to do so again), now is a good time to get involved, either on GuildWiki at http://www.guildwiki.org or right here on GuildWars@Wikia. Be sure to pass this info on to all other Guild Wars fans you know! — The GuildWiki community, represented by Bot ishmael 04:27, December 1, 2010 (UTC)